Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!tina.mrco.carleton.ca!knight
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Why is VisualWorks SO complicated?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: tina.mrco.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <knight.821369445@tina.mrco.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: The Object People
References: <INFO-CLS%96011103204004@VM.GMD.DE>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 14:10:45 GMT
Lines: 27

In <INFO-CLS%96011103204004@VM.GMD.DE> John Keenan <JSKEENAN@SETPOINT.COM> writes:

>I feel it is very important that we have it both ways... actually, I think it
>is more important that we *not* loose pure Smalltalk widgets. In my application
>(which dictates *my* requirements), the value added is the custom widgets
>(interactive canvases in table cells, interactive graphical plots, etc). These
>custom widgets help the user solve the specific problem for which the
>application is designed. It is a VisualWorks 2.0 application and therefore

...
>position is on this issue). When I asked how my custom widgets would be
>implemented the impression I got was that I would have to add the
>customization to each native widget set. I bought the VisualWorks development


I don't see why you would need to re-implement for each. Just because
the system is using native widgets doesn't mean you can't implement
widgets that are partly or entirely done in Smalltalk. The only
problem is that it may be harder to re-use existing widget code.


-- 
 Alan Knight                | The Object People
 knight@acm.org             | Smalltalk and OO Training and Consulting
 alan@objectpeople.on.ca    | 509-885 Meadowlands Dr.
 +1 613 225 8812            | Ottawa, Canada, K2C 3N2

